Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Obamacare Turning a Corner? (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  good points... (7+ / 0-)'re right...we need to stick with reality on this.

    Regarding those enrollment numbers: the one thing that's driving me crazy is people throwing around numbers from both sides. But we still don't know how many people now have health insurance who didn't have it before (your point).

    It's also unclear to me whether enrollments represent the total number of people being covered or just the number of new enrollments (that is to say, if a portion of those enrollments are for family plans involving several people...the actual number of people covered would be higher than the number of enrollments).

    It would be helpful if we were given numbers in terms of how many actual human beings are receiving coverage under the exchanges.

    As far as the demographics, there have been articles recently saying the targeted younger folks currently represent about 25 percent of exchange enrollees vs. the hoped for 41 percent. To my way of thinking, that's not so bad, considering the emphasis has been on merely getting people in general to enroll, not a targeted effort to the young. If we can now start focusing more on reaching the younger demographics instead of merely trying to "fix" the website problems, we should be able to bring that percentage up. In addition, while the current 25 percent figure isn't what had been hoped for (nor planned for) , according to at least one analysis of the situation, it shouldn't affect the overall program that dramatically even if the numbers don't improve that much.  The attached Kaiser Foundation analysis says that even if we get only half of the targeted goal of young folks (20.5 percent), the overall ACA system would still be viable.

    You are right, however, in pointing out...that there are still a lot of challenges ahead.

    •  Problem with the idea of pointing out how (5+ / 0-)

      many of those enrolling didn't have insurance who will now -it's pretty much impossible to do because Obamacare has already ensured so many the last couple of years who otherwise wouldn't have been able to obtain it.

      Example, my niece.  She had insurance the last couple of years through her mother because she was under 26.  Otherwise, she would not have.  She turned 26 this month, so is still insured, but would have lost it next month without the new insurance mandates.  She would not have been able to obtain insurance without the ACA at any cost because of pre existing conditions.  Of course, that pre existing condition was diagnosed only because of the ACA - otherwise, she'd not have able to afford to go to all the various doctors to finally be diagnosed with the illness that has caused her serious difficulties for many years of her life - and receiving the diagnosis and learning how to deal with the illness will hopefully prevent her from developing full blown lupus.  The deductible she'll be facing is depressingly high for her income, but at least she can obtain insurance at a somewhat reasonable cost - about what it cost her through her mother's insurance.  

      So do we put her  under the "didn't have insurance" or "did have insurance" category.  She had it, but had it only because of the ACA.

      Is she a supporter of the ACA?  No.  Why?  Because her family are super religious and therefore staunch Republicans and the Democrats have done an incredibly shitty job of explainingn to her how much of a positive impact they've already had on her life - with the incredible helpfulness of the MSM making certain they're given as few opportunities as possible.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site